Bryon WilfertLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the 24th General Assembly of the ASEAN Interparliamentary Organization meetings held in Jakarta, Indonesia in September 2003.

Mr. Speaker, as the co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, concerning broadcasting licence fees.

Notwithstanding Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, your committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report within 30 days.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-462, an act to amend the Access to Information Act and to make amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, this is a private member's bill that is the result of all party cooperation from backbench MPs extending over several years it will dramatically overhaul the current Access to Information Act and extend its reach to include all crown corporations and government agencies, government funded non-profit organizations, the Senate, the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament, ministers and their exempt staffs, officers of Parliament, cabinet confidences and government opinion polling, among other things.

This bill I think is very much in order in the temper of the times and I think, Mr. Speaker, you will find that most members will support it.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of citizens in and around the Drumheller region of Alberta and in my particular area of the riding, petitioners have signed a petition today calling on Parliament to immediately raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years of age. This petition will be joining the hundreds of thousands of requests already tabled for this.

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to file, one with one hundred signatures from the province of Quebec and one from Saskatchewan. Both petitions call on Parliament to pass legislation making the legal definition of marriage to be that between a man and a woman.

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present, all of which are signed by a number of Canadians, including citizens from my own riding of Mississauga South.

The first petition has to do with Bill C-250. The petitioners want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that it is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation brought before the House and it must not be passed into law because it would threaten all those who oppose special rights for homosexuals, including same sex marriages, with prosecution on the basis of alleged hate.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with stem cell research. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that Canadians support ethical stem cell research which has already shown encouraging potential to provide cures and therapies for the illnesses and diseases of Canadians. The petitioners also want to point out that non-embryonic stem cells, which are also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells.

The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find those cures and therapies.

The final petition, Mr. Speaker, is on the subject matter of the definition of marriage. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that on June 10 the Ontario Court of Appeal in fact said that the definition of marriage being the legal union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others is unconstitutional. They also want to point out that the federal government has the opportunity under section 33 of the charter, also known as the notwithstanding clause, to overrule that judgment.

The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to invoke the notwithstanding clause and to pass a law so that only two persons of the opposite sex can be married.

With respect to the following statements from page two of the Government of Canada Regulatory Policy published by the Privy Council Office “to ensure that use of the government’s regulatory powers results in the greatest net benefit to society,” and “the government will weigh the benefits of alternatives to regulation, and of alternative regulations, against their cost, and focus resources where they can do the most good”: ( a ) what are all the benefits of gun ownership in Canada; ( b ) what are all the direct and indirect costs of regulating firearms ownership in Canada; and ( c ) what were the benefits and costs for each of the alternatives to regulating firearms ownership weighed by the government?

Mr. Speaker, hunting and other shooting sports do have a sizeable economic impact on Canada.

In response to (a), in 2000 the report “The Importance of Nature to Canadians: The Economic Significance of Nature-related Activities” published by Environment Canada indicated:

In 1996, residents of Canada reported spending $11.0 billion on a variety of nature related activities within Canada. They made trip related expenditures for transportation, accommodation and food. They also purchased equipment, supplies and other items needed to pursue nature related activities, such as camping gear, outdoor clothing, boats, trucks, hunting and fishing equipment and supplies, licence and entry fees, cameras and binoculars. Other examples of expenditures for nature related activities are membership fees or donations to nature related organizations, costs to maintain land for conservation and purchase of feeders and feed for wildlife.

Of that total, $828.3 million is estimated to have been spent by hunters. It is important to note that this estimate does not differentiate between those hunters who use firearms and those who use other means. The 1996 survey breaks down estimated expenditures by hunters in this way: Hunting equipment accounted for 46.5% of the $823.8 million spent within Canada. The remaining amount went for trip related expenses, including: transportation, 20.2%; food, 12.1%; and accommodation, 4.7%; or for other items, such as licence fees and ammunition, 16.5%.

Hunting is the overwhelming reason for firearm ownership in Canada. A study conducted in the fall 2000 by GPC Research found that 74% of Canadian firearms owners owned guns for hunting. Fourteen percent of Canadian owners are target shooters, with this the second most common activity reported in the survey.

With regard to the year preceding the GPC Research survey, it should be noted that more than half of Canadian firearm owners had used their firearms no more than once. In fact, 37% of Canadian firearm owners surveyed had not used their firearm in the previous 12 months.

In response to (b), a more fulsome report on costs will be provided in the chapter on the firearms program contained within the Department of Justice’s departmental performance report, DPR, for 2002-03 that will be tabled in Parliament this fall.

Direct costs incurred by the Canada Firearms Centre since the passage of the Firearms Act in fiscal year 1995-96 to the end of 2001-02 were approximately $668.3 million.

This amount includes funds reimbursed by the centre to its federal partners, such as CCRA, RCMP, HRDC and PWGSC, and contribution funding to the provinces, territories, aboriginal and other communities, and non-profit organizations.

In response to (c), it is impossible to determine the economic impact of firearms without considering the costs associated with firearm crime, violence and accidents. A study by Ted R. Miller published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 1995 indicated that the total estimated costs of gunshot wounds in Canada in 1991 was $6.6 billion in 1993 dollars.

That study looked only at incidents where an individual was shot. Clearly, there are also economic costs related to firearm crime where victims are not shot. This amount would be in addition to Dr. Miller’s $6.6 billion estimate.

The financial impact of not controlling firearms is evident. The economic impact of alternatives to universal licensing and registration can be seen, for example, in the United States. It was recently reported that Chicago public schools spend approximately $60 million U.S. on security. According to the chief executive of Chicago public schools, “That's the price we're paying for our society's appalling fascination with, and easy access to, guns”.

What was the total amount of money transferred to the Assembly of First Nations by the government, broken down by fiscal year from 1994-2003, and, without limiting the generality of “total amount”, what was the total amount in each fiscal year broken down by core funding, contracts, special funding, special advocacy issues, travel if distinct from core funding, salaries if distinct from core funding, and any other funding category usually distinguished by the government?

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should protect our children from further sexual exploitation by immediately eliminating from child pornography laws all defences for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today to speak on this particular issue. I have been trying to achieve this day for a long time and we are finally here. I hope this will be the day on which we will able to accomplish a real and true victory for the children of our country, because that is what this motion is all about. It is about our kids and the difficulties facing them regarding so many issues in our system that allow crimes against them to be committed.

I want to read the motion to the House. Once again, it states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should protect our children from further sexual exploitation by immediately eliminating from child pornography laws all defences for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children.

There is a key word in this motion, which I want to point out to all members, a word that is so important because the arguments against such a motion would not reflect this key word. If people stop and think about it, they will understand why it is so essential that we have this kind of system in place. That word is “exploitation”.

The reason I say this is that when we have discussed child pornography in the past, a number of questions have arisen from members in the House who claimed that any laws that would tighten up this child pornography law to the extent which we are asking for today would mean that parents who had at home a picture of their small children taking their first bath could be prosecuted. I even heard in this House that if some student was carrying around Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet , that could be interpreted as pornography. Or if doctors had nude pictures of a child in their offices for medical reasons, or if psychologists or psychiatrists wanted to do some research in this field and had in their possession certain items of child pornography, that could get them into trouble.

But all those examples do not exploit the child. This is why it is so important to remember that word.

The exploitation of our children has become of epidemic proportions throughout this country. We need only go to our neighbours in Toronto, to the Toronto police force and its sex crimes unit, where they will tell us, as Julian Fantino and other members of the sex crimes unit have stated time and time again, that this is becoming a very serious problem. It is jeopardizing the lives and the welfare of so many kids that it has to be addressed and it needs to be addressed immediately.

This is why I am pleased that we could do this today. I believe that October 28 ought to mark the day when every member in this House says to the people of this nation that October 28 is the day on which we decided, all 301 of us regardless of political stripe, because it is not a political issue, that today we are going to provide victory for the young kids of our country.

For 10 years I have been here and for 10 years many of us from all sides of the House have attempted to address this particular issue, to do something about it, because we do not want to hear about any more young children being abducted and sexually assaulted and then later found murdered.

I talked about Toronto. I think of the incident that happened to the Jones family and their little girl Holly. It absolutely sickens me to think that a young child had to face such a tragic ending to her life. I cannot even imagine what would be going through the hearts of the family of this young girl and those acquainted with her.

We have very good evidence. All of us should have had the evidence presented to us at one time or another. I know my colleagues from Okanagan—Shuswap, Fraser Valley and Calgary Northeast, who have travelled the country and visited penitentiaries, will tell everyone that when we personally visited with those who were in prison for sexually assaulting or murdering a young child, nine out of ten of them said that the reason they got to that point was because they were absolutely hooked on child pornography, and that eventually pictures, images and stories no longer fulfilled their inner needs and they had to act out their fantasies. Their compulsion was overwhelming and it caused them to do what they did.

That has been proven through all kinds of studies. All kinds of people who are involved in the work of psychology or criminology will say that child pornography has played a major role in affecting those adult individuals who have and who will eventually attack our children. There is no doubt about that.

If there were any kind of chemical or substance of any kind, whether it be food or whatever, that would be dangerous to our health, we would react immediately and remove that item. We would get rid of it because we do not want to bring harm upon anyone. For the life of me I cannot understand how a nation can sit by and watch pornography, particularly child pornography, go to the extent it has where it has become a billion dollar industry.

For heaven's sake, people are making big bucks on selling some of the worst garbage anyone could ever imagine and we have allowed it to get to the point where the chiefs of police in various parts of the country are saying that it is getting out of control. They want to do something about it. They want to remove it just like we would remove rotten food from the menu of this place, but their hands are tied because we have not provided them with the ability to do so.

Why do we even want to take the chance of something like that being challenged. Why do the 301 of us not declare today, and today is the day to do it, that child pornography will no longer be part of this nation's environment and that we will eliminate it. The 301 of us from the highest court in the land should send the message to the judges throughout the country that this is the way it will be and that the people in the courts, whenever this kind of material is brought to their attention, will lay charges when it exploits our kids, because that is what it is all about. It is about our kids.

We must not continue to tie the hands of the police. We must give them the tools and the ability to do their jobs so they can do what they want to do most, which is clean up this mess and provide real protection to our kids.

In Toronto, in the sex crimes units, particularly those sex crimes against children, they have confiscated over two million items of child pornography. It is because of the laws that we have on the books now and because of Bill C-20, which will be presented some time in the near future. I understand the justice minister wants it passed before Christmas. However that bill is not the answer. The police have to go through every one of the two million pieces to make absolutely certain that they do not have artistic merit or there is not some public good. Can anyone imagine those officers spending 10 to 12 hours a day only looking at material like that, material that displays a 14 month old baby in diapers being raped and tortured by two adult men, or one and two year old little girls being brutally treated by adult men?

I do not want to get into the graphics of what I have seen. I am sure a lot of members in here have seen what I have seen. It is available to us. We just need to examine what these people are having to do. Can anyone imagine what we would be like after a month or two of that? No one should have to be subjected to that kind of thing.

A law should be in place saying that this kind of material exploits our children and it is not allowed. It should state that people cannot have it in their possession, they cannot produce it, they cannot distribute it and, if they do, they will pay a heavy price through the laws of our land because it is no longer tolerated.

In answer to a question that I asked the justice minister yesterday, he made a statement that the member well knows that Bill C-20 addresses that problem and that the member well knows that the government will do something about this issue. The member for Provencher will address Bill C-20 at greater length than I will, but I can tell the minister that, no, I do not know that, the police do not know that, the courts do not know that and the prosecutors do not know that. It is only the justice minister who thinks he knows that but he has not convinced anyone. He certainly has not convinced the police who to me are the most important people in the land. They should at least be the ones who know that what they have in their hands will be sufficient to put an end to this tragic event that is going on day after day.

This stuff is not just confined to cities. It is now leaking into the rural communities. I have 16 RCMP detachments in my riding and I have contacted most of them. They have said, yes, they have had complaints brought to them regarding child pornography but that the only thing they can do is refer them to the city police for help because they do not have the training, the expertise or the knowledge on how to deal with it.

Let us give them the opportunity. Let us start a national strategy. Let us put some dollars into a worthwhile project. Do not tell me we cannot find the dollars, not when we brag about a $7 billion surplus. Let us put that money to good work by protecting our kids and providing them with some safety.

Statistics have shown that in Canada one out of every two females and one out of every three males will be sexually assaulted in our land. Those are not very good odds. And, yes, it is true, a lot of it is within the family. It is not just strangers on the outside. It may be because mom or dad or both got hooked on some fantasy regarding child pornography and it developed into sexually assaulting their own children.

Some families may focus on the idea of the big bucks the industry brings in and decide to use their own kids and exploit the daylights out of them to get certain things in some material, whether it be a film or picture, and make money through distributing and selling it.

However the reasons do not matter. The point is that we have thousands of families who are victims of severe, horrendous, heinous sexual crimes against kids. What a life they must lead from that point on. What a tragedy and a tragedy that could be prevented.

Chief Fantino said “if only we had the courage, the conviction and the will the problem could be addressed”. Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that Chief Fantino and my colleagues have the courage and the will and we want it done today.

I know for a fact that many members throughout the House on all sides have the same feeling. Today is the day to put our feelings aside and put them into action by supporting the motion and passing it in the House of Commons. All of us have kids in our lives, whether we are moms, dads, grandfathers, grandmothers, aunts, uncles or just friends. We all have a connection to some young kids and we want them protected.

Let us not leave here today cheering that we have done this and then nothing happens for awhile. Let us get at it and make it happen. I have seen too many motions passed in the House. I saw a motion on the rights of victims pass in the House but it never went anywhere. The sex registry motion was passed by the House and almost two years later we are still waiting for something to happen.

We cannot wait. Lives are at stake. The safety of the children you know, Mr. Speaker, is at stake. It is time we took some serious action for the sake of our kids. We know the story behind all this and how it has got out of hand. Why do we want to be part of the problem? Let us be the solution today.

Let us put it to the nation that as of October 28, 2003 child pornography and the exploitation of children will no longer be an acceptable activity in this country and that people who engage in it will be in a lot of trouble. Let us stamp it out once and for all. It am not talking about a crime or even something that is bad. I am talking about something that is downright evil, evil that is happening to our children, and it has to stop.

I plead with every mother, grandmother and every other person who feels the way I feel on this issue to contact their MPs and let them know they want action, not just words or a friendly vote at the end of the day, but that something be put in place today. If we have to stay here until 6 o'clock tomorrow morning to get it done I will be here because it is worth doing. Let us get it done before Christmas. I ask the Justice Minister to join the parade. Let us really mean it. We do not need more phony legislation that will not deal with it. If we are going to do it, let us do it right and do it right now.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to the member for Wild Rose for his leadership on this particular subject as well as many other subjects which have to do with the health and well-being of children and families in Canada.

I want to ask the member a question of clarification about the wording of the motion, but I would like to make a brief comment about a concern that I have. It has to do with judicial activism and the insensitivity of the courts to the social and moral values of Canadians. I have seen it even in our own justice committee where many of the members who are in the legal profession are arguing in a sanitized environment in which there does not seem to be the sensitivity to what is right. It is almost mechanical.

The difficulty that I have is, how can we deal with a social injustice like the existence of child pornography, and the possession and the distribution, et cetera, in a sterile, mechanical environment? I hope that one day we will get a better balance on the justice committee so that we can start talking about the underpinning social values that the laws of this country should be reflecting.

I certainly agree with the motion and I will support it. My question is in regard to the motion and I am sure the hon. member will be able to elaborate. It has to do with the last part where it says that it wants to eliminate “from child pornography laws all defences for possession of child pornography which allow for the exploitation of children”.

We all know that the very existence of child pornography means that a child must have been abused. I suspect, and maybe the member would like to clarify, that he is referring to those cases where someone may be in possession of child pornography. It might be, for instance, police officers or special workers who are working on resolving a problem, and those who have had this tragic experience. Does he agree that child pornography in all its forms and the possession of child pornography in itself is an abuse of children?

Mr. Speaker, the member has brought up an important point. It is the very issue that I started my speech off with concerning the key word in the motion which is exploitation.

We know that the police have possession of child pornography. We know that many psychologists and psychiatrists throughout the country might be doing research in this area and will have possession of it. However, we know that they are not the exploiters of child pornography. There would be no reason to bring a charge against these people because they are not exploiting children through this material.

I do not believe there is a police officer or a crown prosecutor or even a judge in this country who would entertain the idea of bringing any of those people to court. Somewhere along the line some common sense has to enter into the picture. If individuals were to have this material in their possession for reasons other than the exploitation of our children, then the police should examine those reasons. The police will know what to do with it. The point is that the seriousness of the exploitation that is going on is completely out of control. If there is a better way to word that, then I would like to know what it would be.

From the articles that I have read, many lawyers and bar associations around the country are saying that Bill C-20 will never meet the charter test. This might possibly be challenged under the charter. If the huge majority of people who run this country make the decision that, regardless of what challenges may be brought forward, this particular material must cease to exist, that decision must be made loud and clear to the courts. They must tell our courts that this material must be removed from the face of the earth and will not be allowed.

If it comes to the point where the charter interferes with that decision, then maybe it is time to consider the notwithstanding clause. I do not believe that the people who created the charter of rights ever dreamed for a moment that it would protect child pornographers. Possibly, some of the things in the charter may not agree with what Canadians believe in, and so there is an out. If we are worried about this, the notwithstanding clause is our out.

Mr. Trudeau and all the fellows who put the charter together were wise enough to know that there may be conflicts so they put the notwithstanding clause in to be used. However, I understand that a large number of people on the government side absolutely refuse to ever use that clause. When it comes to this kind of issue, this is the time to use the notwithstanding clause.

We must put an end to this evil. That is what we are attempting to do today. I believe that through the collective wisdom of the House we can do it and do it right. If it comes to a point, because of judicial activism, that this is declared unconstitutional, then we have an out. We need to consider that out, and we should think about it right from the get go.

The kind of country that we want to live in should not be determined by the judges of our land. That should be determined by the people, either through direct or indirect democracy. They must decide what kind of country they want to live in.

I am sure the member will agree with me that probably 99% of the people of this land do not want to live in a country where child pornography is a major industry. We must end it. However we do it, we must do it and do it quickly.

Mr. Speaker, there is a cop-out in a simple phrase. First it was artistic value and now it is for the public good.

I would like to ask my colleague or anyone else who is going to speak today, what part of pornography is acceptable and for the public good?. That phrase is a misnomer. That phrase should never be in the courts. It should never be uttered. What part of pornography could possibly be for the public good?

Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of anything nor possibly imagine what kind of idea the courts could come up with regarding the public good.

Another thing that has been brought up is that people should have the freedom of expression. We have all heard that expression. God knows, Mr. Speaker, you have known me for 10 years and you know I would like to express myself in different ways in this House, but I cannot because I am not allowed. You would shut me down in a hurry because it is not allowed.

We do not dare yell “fire” in a theatre or “bomb” in an airport. Freedom of expression is not just wide open. So, no one can tell me that exploitation of a child through child pornography is freedom of expression. That is totally unacceptable and there is no public good when it comes to exploiting our children. It must end.

Mr. Speaker, I notice the motion is worded very carefully. I would like the member to clarify that he associates child pornography with pictures, writings or whatever that actually have a real victim rather than the meanderings of some people writing or drawing in their own private home. There has to be a real victim.

As far as I am concerned and most Canadians are concerned, any time we dwell on that, whether we are writing, sketching or whatever, even the activity itself is dangerous to our kids. It is an activity that must absolutely not be done.

I am not saying that we should bring a charge against a man and throw him in jail. I am saying that there is a man who has a problem. If he is 64 years old and cannot do anything except draw dirty pictures and write silly stories regarding the exploitation of children, he needs help.

I am sure a good legal system would recognize the difference between an individual like that and a person who is actually making a victim of a real child. Believe me, we know that over 10,000 kids in the City of Toronto have been identified as real victims in this industry, and that is a shame.